The last few years have seen a noticeable increase in the demand for accountability in government by the Canadian public.

“Parliament and taxpayers alike want to know that government is managed well and that public money is spent wisely,” observed Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, at the recent conference organized by the Canadian Council of Legislative Auditors (CCOLA) and the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees (CCPAC).

It was in response to these changes in the public environment that CCOLA and CCPAC asked CCAF to present a vision for the “PAC of the Future” at their annual conference held on August 20 in Victoria, BC.

CCAF accepted this opportunity, seeing it as a way to help its members propose new ways to strengthen the capacity of Canada's Public Account Committees.

“Public Account Committees play a key role in how legislatures hold governments to account. CCAF and its members – based on our expertise and non-partisan nature – believe we can and should play a leading role in strengthening the capacity of Public Account Committees across Canada,” said Geoff Dubrow, Director of Capacity Development at CCAF.

Dubrow then presented CCAF's findings at the Victoria conference, outlining how the PAC of the Future will:

• Be accountability-driven, motivated by proper implementation, not narrowly defined political interests;
• Have improved institutional capacity with staff and resources to produce results; and
• Be an experienced PAC with consistent membership and knowledge of the unique role of the PAC within the legislature.

Accountability-Driven

For a PAC of the Future to be considered accountability-driven, it will need to be able to bring about corrective action. While many PACs hold hearings on the reports by legislative auditors and call government witnesses, corrective action begins with a working culture of constructive partisanship. The PAC of the Future will need to ensure members balance their shared goal of achieving corrective action, with the regular give and take of partisan politics, in a way that improves public administration instead of simply scoring political points.

This will mean holding hearings on the reports by legislative auditors, issuing recommendations to the government, and developing a formal follow-up process to ensure that departments have implemented the PAC's recommendations and can be held to account for any lack of action.

Today, although most PACs have the power to issue recommendations, less than half actually do so and only about half have a formal follow-up process.

“While a certain amount of partisanship is to be expected, too much can draw the committee into matters that are not directly related to issues of good governance. This can undermine the legitimacy of parliamentary scrutiny,” noted Sheila Fraser at the Victoria conference.

Institutional Capacity

While the workload of PACs has increased in recent years as accountability and governance issues have received intensified media and public scrutiny, the allocation of financial and staff resources to ensure that PAC members can respond effectively has not always kept pace.

This observation led to the second CCAF finding presented at the conference: the PAC of the Future will require enhanced institutional capacity, both in terms of staff and financial resources.

Today, only half of Canada's PACs have two or fewer researchers, with the remainder having none. Less than half hire external consultants or other experts to assist members. This lack of research support limits a committee's ability to be properly briefed and restricts its ability to analyze materials, as well as to develop, issue, and follow-up on recommendations.

“With our PAC's current budget, our hands are tied when it comes to being a robust accountability mechanism,” said Hugh MacDonald, Chair of the PAC in Alberta, even though he welcomed the recent hiring of a researcher for the PAC.

Additional resources would be used for preparing briefings and reports, obtaining status reports from departments, and flagging instances where departments have failed to comply with PAC recommendations or reports by legislative auditors. The PAC of the Future would also have a budget to contract subject matter experts when necessary.

Experienced Membership

Having established shared goals among PAC members and armed with the resources required to “get the job done,” the third element required in creating the PAC of the Future will be strengthening the skill set and experience base that PAC members bring to the committee.

Past CCAF research identified the unique learning curve of the committee and the lack of training options as a concern. Although almost 80% of PACs do provide some limited form of orientation for their members, there is still a concern among PAC chairs about committee members not being properly briefed prior to participating in PAC meetings. Moreover, 80 per cent of the PACs allow for substitution of members. Too many substitutions can be problematic because, as one PAC member stated in the CCAF PAC Guide, “It takes more time to be effective on the public accounts committee than on other committees where you can just jump in.”

As part of its recommendations, the CCAF proposed that members of newly constituted PACs of the Future would receive detailed orientation on their oversight responsibilities and on issues of governance and that substitutions and turnover be kept to a minimum. CCAF also proposed that more PACs form a planning or steering committee composed of the PAC Chair and a member from each party caucus. A follow-on recommendation is that these steering committees stay in regular contact with House Leaders and whips to ensure they are aware of the importance of minimizing substitutions and turnover.

PAC-Witness Relations

One issue that emerged during the discussions at the Victoria conference was the expectations placed on government witnesses. Many participants felt that witnesses should be provided with enough time to prepare answers to anticipated questions from legislators.

“Difficulties can also arise if the Public Accounts Committee has a different expectation of government witnesses than the government itself,” explained Sheila Fraser, adding, “Problems can arise when the hearing veers beyond the factual information contained in the audit reports.” This statement echoed that of Shawn Murphy, Charlottetown MP and Chair of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts. At the 2006 CCOLA/CCPAC conference held in Charlottetown, Murphy noted that he had “seen witnesses talk for five minutes on an issue that really had nothing to do with the question.” He went on to stress the need for, “the questions [to witnesses to] be concise, be precise, but equally important that the answers be answers to the questions”.

The underlying conclusion of the discussion was that the PAC is not “just another committee,” but a unique parliamentary tool with a unique culture. The PAC's role is not to question policy – that responsibility belongs to other legislative committees – but to examine implementation. Moreover, the feedback at the conference showed that the work of the PAC is an essential element of the process of assuring accountability and maximising the efficiency of public spending.

With the implementation of CCAF's recommendations, Canada's PACs will be in a better position to fulfill their mandate. The concept and tools required to bring about ever-greater accountability have evolved with time. So, too, must the PAC.

A transcript of the conference proceedings is now available online at http://www.ccpac.ca/proceed/2007_Transcript.pdf.

CCAF's presentation begins on page 15 of the transcript.

Copyright © 2007 CCAF-FCVI
Privacy Policy